Emine ORHAN, Yelda KIYGA, Sezai ERCİŞLİ, Emine ÖZDEMİR, Kazim GÜNDÜZ, Sedat SERÇE

Farklı sistemlerde yetiştirilen çileklerin (Fragaria x ananassa Duch.) meyve eti sertlik ölçümleri arasındaki ilişkiler

Bu çalısmada, genis bir genetik çesitlilik içeren 11 çilek çesidi ısıtmalı cam sera, plastik sera ve açıkta olmak üzere üç yetistiricilik sisteminde yetistirilerek, çesitlerin meyve eti sertlikleri üç degisik yöntemle (Sessel sertlik sensörü; 5 mm uçlu el penetrometresi; 8 mm uçlu penotrometre) belirlenmistir. Üç yöntem arasındaki iliskilerden sadece iki penetrometre arasındakiler her üç yetistirme yerinde de önemli (R2= 0.60 – 0.93) bulunmus, öteki iliskilere ait regresyon degerleri istatistiksel olarak farklılık göstermemistir. Sonuçlar aynı genotiplere ait meyve eti sertlik degerlerinin, farklı yetistirme sistemlerinde degisik olmaları yanında farklı yöntemlerle belirlendiklerinde de degisim gösterdiklerini; ve bu degisimler arasındaki iliskilerin benzesmedigini göstermistir.

Relationships among the firmness measurements of strawberries (Fragaria x ananassa Duch.) grown on different systems

In this study, 11 strawberry cultivars which imlied on a vast scale geetic variation originated from diverse breeding programs which were heated greenhouse, plastic house and open field. Their fruit firmness was determined by using 3 different methods (Acoustic firmness sensor; fruit hardness tester with 5 mm plunger; and fru it firmness tester with 8 mm plunger). The relationships between these methods only two of penetrometer measurement were found to be statistically significant (R2 = 0.60 – 0.93). These results indicated that not only the same genotypes may give different fruit firmness on varying environments but also when they are tested with different environments; and, they were not resemble each other.

PDF

___

1. Burkhart, L., 1943. Firmness of Strawberries as Measured by a Penetrometer. Plant Physiol. 18: 693-698.
2. Døving, A., and F. Måge, 2002. Testing Strawberry Fruit Firmness. Acta Agric. Scand., Sect. B, Soil and Plant Sci. 52: 43- 51.
3. Døving, A., F. Måge and S. Vestrheim, 2005. Methods for Testing Strawberry Fruit Firmness: a Review. Small Fruit Review 4: 11-34.
4. FAO, 2008. (www.fao.org).
5. Kader, A.A., 1991. Quality and its Maintenance in Relation to the Postharvest Physiology of Strawberry. In The Strawberry into the 21st Century (Eds;, A., Dale, J.J. Luby). Proceedings of the Third North American Strawberry Conference Houston, Texas, 14-16 Feb., 1990. p: 145- 152.
6. Kader, A.A., L.L. Morris and P. Chen, 1978. Evaluation of Two Objective Methods and a Subjective Rating Scale for Measuring Tomato Fruit Firmness. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 103: 70-73.
7. Khanizadeh, S., J. DeEll, J. Cousineau and I. Lagrave, 2000. Comparison of Three Methods to Evaluate Fruit Firmness in Advanced Strawberry Selections. Acta Hort. 517: 463-465.
8. Macnish, A.J., D.C. Joyce and A. J. Shorter, 1997. A Simple Non-Destructive Method for Laboratory Evaluation of Fruit Firmness. Australian J. Exp. Agr. 37: 709-713.
9. Marler, T.E., and P.W. Marler, 1996. Application Tonometry for Fruit Firmness Measurements. Hort.Sci. 31: 641(abstract).
10. Olcott-Reid, and B. J.N. Moore, 1995. Fruit Firmness, Calyx and Neck Ratings Correlated with Field Fruit Rot Reactions of nine Strawberry Cultivars. Fruit Var. J. 49: 14-19.
11. Ourecky, D.K., and M.C. Bourne, 1968. Measurement of Strawberry Texture with an Instron Machine. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 93: 317-325.
12. Özdemir. E., 1992. Kumul Alanlarda Çilek Yetistiriciliginde Erkencilik Verim ve Kalite Üzerine Solarizasyon, Fide Materyali, Yetistirme Ortamı ve Yüksek Plastik Tünellerin Etkileri (Doktora Tezi), Ç.Ü. Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Adana.
13. Plocharski, W. 1982. Strawberries-Quality of Fruits, Their Storage Life and Suitability for Processing. Part III. Firmness and Pectic Substance Changes of Strawberries Stored Under Normal and Controlled Atmosphere Conditions. Fruit Sci. Rpt. 9: 111-122.
14. Plocharski, W. 1989. Strawberries-Quality of Fruits, Their Storage Life and Suitability for Processing. Part V. Variability and Classification of Strawberry Cultivars in Respect to Some Chemical Components. Fruit Sci. Rpt. 16: 109-124.
15. SAS Institute. 2005. SAS Online Doc, Version 8. SAS Inst., Cary, NC.
16. Scheerens, J.C., and G.L. Brenneman, 1991. Fruit Quality Patterns Among Strawberry Cultivars Based on Decade of Release or Area of Adaptation. In The Strawberry into the 21st Century (Eds; A., Dale, and J.J. Luby). Proceedings of the Third North American Strawberry Conference Houston, Texas, 14-16 Feb., 1990. p: 145-152.
17. Testoni, A., L. Lovatti and W. Faedi, 1989. Shelf Life and Fruit Quality of Strawberry Varieties and Selections After Storage. Acta Hort. 265: 435-442.
18. Turhan, E., and S. Paydas Kargı, 2007. Strawberry Production in Turkey. Cronica Horitculturae 47:18-20.
19. Zebatakis, I., and M.A. Holden, 1997. Strawberry Flavor: Analysis and Biosynthesis. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 74: 421-434.